That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok… Well think about it.

I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don’t consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.

Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then “everyone” can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.

Well, I would love if that concept could be retired and forgotten sooner than later. But as things are right now, e.g. CRT is required to get there and CRT requires the concept of race :/

You could easily create that meme for the tolerance paradox. Just saying

I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won’t change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.

I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.

Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.

Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.

Signal is like WhatsApp but you don’t even need to share your phone number for it anymore. You can have an username and share that with people.

Being against, doesn’t make you hateful anyway.

I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.

Honestly I had too many people insist that Tedx has any value

That man is onto something. God bless!

What communities do you like? I am looking for more

I didn’t exclude them. And I want to make clear that I strongly believe women to be equal to men. Ofc there are men who want to be dominated.

But I was giving a critic to the idea that women wouldn’t be able to freely consent due to some vague sense of possible abuse from a man. Because that would imply that e.g. if a man chains himself on a board and give a woman a cat o’ nine tails, the woman couldn’t freely choose to hit him as the man is still a source of some vague sense of possible abuse in the future as a consequence of her decision. Which isn’t completely wrong, of course there are women to are in such a situation, but as a general condition, it heavily implies that women can’t consent to anything, even to anything that would less the threat of abuse. Which is simply insulting to women, and invalidating any woman’s opinion on these things, especially those who prefer something that it viewed as possibly abusive.

Like take people seriously, and support the creation of supportive structures for those who need them to get out of a situation where leaving is difficult.

Yeah it does and you couldn’t really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to “enforce” those norms as women would fear to stop the men.

So sexism can’t be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?

Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.

I just did and some of the stuff is wild. Not gonna quote or reference anything for my account safety, don’t ask.

The Venn diagram is a circle but the outspoken XYZ Venn diagram is not a circle, some are smart enough to shut the fuck up.

Honestly I don’t remember anything directly antisemitic from him, some of his guests were, if I remember correctly, but not directly from him. Do you happen to know an example of him being openly antisemitic? Not that it matters, he probably is in private.

To be fair, he is racist too!!!

I would never say that iphone users are clueless by default about tech. Many are, just like android users and some act like apple has the most amazing tech, but I wouldn’t say that iphone users are generally clueless.

I think there are good and bad reasons to have an iphone.

In percentage/fractions, yes. As you asked about absolute numbers, it is a difference of 9 missing votes for both. I am sorry that you don’t understand that. No one taught you that, I guess.

But let’s say that your ridiculous goal post move is a fair critic, then let’s talk about details in the American election system. It is not a popular vote, as the electoral college decides who will be the president and the vote of the elector in the electoral college doesn’t have to follow the popular vote held in the state, while some states require them to. How many electors each state has, is based on a system that is a bit too complicated to explain here but you can Google Huntington hill method. But the result of that system is that 1 elector in Wyoming is 193.000 votes but over 700.000 in Texas and California. Which means that a single Wyoming vote is 3 times as valuable as a Texas vote. So in other words, the whole percentage thing is more complicated than just a popular vote. But you didn’t actually want to have a conversation about how valuable a vote is (assuming that the elector doesn’t ignore your popular vote which they might can) otherwise you would have pointed that out in my response.

And you would have known all of this, if you would actually care about the question and the elections. Like I am not even American, but even I know that little.

Edit: why are you dming me? You asked a public question. Why move into private one now?

Also in case, someone doesn’t know how he doesn’t understand how voting work and how the whole .05, .02 is moving the goal post, basically if people always case whole votes, so in a normal popular vote, if you need 9 votes, you need 9 votes. There is no practical difference between 0.5 and 0.02 in this case. People cast whole votes. Now in my response, I make clear that Wyoming are more valuable but that is only the case if you treat the system as if it was a popular vote as commonly done, both in these comments and the general public discussion. If you look on the election on a state level which is a totally reasonable thing to do as generally speaking, the statement that he asked you to prove, could have been state between to people from the same state. If you do so, then my point about the value of the vote is irrelevant but then we can talk about votes are a static value and then a vote is always a whole vote and my point about people cast whole votes apply, then we have to realize that if we save he needs 20 votes to win, that technically he doesn’t need 20 votes to win but only 19.0000000000001 votes to win but as people cast whole votes, you “can’t” get e.g. 19.32 votes. So we say 20. By reducing the required votes to win, we morph the value of a singular vote. Because A and B still needs the 20 votes to win but C only needs 19. So 1/20 is .05 but 1/19 is .052… So now we can take the .052 can create a fraction for it, that would be 1.04/20. Oh look, trump can win with 19.04 now. The difference between 0.05 and .052 is irrelevant for this situation.